[linux-cifs-client] SMB support still missing?

[Jan Engelhardt]

>Steve will have a much better handle on this, I'm sure.
>
>Regarding nmblookup...
>mount.cifs does not, as far as I know, rely on nmblookup, but it *does* need
>to perform an NBT name resolution which is the same job that nmblookup does.
>
>It's odd about the IP addresses you're getting.  What's in your smb.conf.

Don't tell me mount.cifs relies on smb.conf......

smb.conf is just the plain initial default config provided by 
samba: http://rafb.net/p/eN8zoF50.html


>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>> Have you tried using smbclient to verify that the share is really available?
>> 
>> Yes, I did. Given that `mount -t smbfs //cl0/c` works flawlessy, I 
>> suppose hostname lookups are working. On the other hand, `mount -t smbfs 
>> -o ip=192.168.222.33 //noDNSentryHost` also works, which is why I 
>> suspected "everything is right, and cifs is broken".
>> 
>> However, at second look:
>> 
>> sk0# nmblookup cl0
>> querying cl0 on 192.168.67.255
>> querying cl0 on 192.168.223.255
>> querying cl0 on 192.168.231.255
>> querying cl0 on 192.168.92.255
>> name_query failed to find name cl0
>> 
>> So what is this? I don't have any 223 nor 231:
>> 
>> sk0# /sbin/ip a
>> 1: lo: ...
>>     inet 127.0..1/8 scope host lo
>> 2: eth0: ...
>>     inet 192.168.64.2/22 brd 192.168.67.255 scope global eth0
>>     inet 192.168.222.99/24 brd 192.168.222.255 scope global eth0
>>     inet 192.168.229.2/24 brd 192.168.229.225 scope global eth0
>> 3: eth1: ...
>>     inet 192.168.92.1/24 brd 192.168.92.255 scope global eth1
>> 
>> 
>> Looks to me like nmblookup adds +0 for .64.0/22, +1 for .222.0/24 and +2 
>> .229.0/24. Argh!! BUG! mount.cifs should not rely on nmblookup anyway.
>> 
>> 
>>> The "Host is down" message suggests a name resolution failure, but I
>>> haven't studied the CIFS VFS error messages so that's just a guess.  What do
>>> you get when you enter "nmblookup cl0"?
>> 
>> 
>> So with one IP address assigned to eth0 only, I get
>> 
>> sk0# mount -t cifs //cl0/c /mnt/0
>> Password: (blank)
>> mount error 2 = No such file or directory
>> 
>> sk0# mount -t cifs //cl0/c /mnt/0 -o sec=none
>> mount error 112 = Host is down
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> and since there is a bug report for error 112 etc. etc. etc., I believe 
>> cifs is still not W98-ready.
>> Maybe Steve French knows more?
>> 
>> 
>>> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>>> Hello list,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> as of kernel 2.6.20-rc7, cifs still cannot mount Windows 98 despite the 
>>>> source code containing traces that believe it could. (Existence of 
>>>> cifssmb.c) If so, what is wrong with mounting?
>>>>
>>>> sk0# mount -t cifs //cl0/c /mnt/0
>>>> Password: (leave blank)
>>>>  CIFS VFS: No response for cmd 114 mid 1
>>>>  CIFS VFS: cifs_mount failed w/return code = -112
>>>> mount error 112 = Host is down
>>>> Refer to the mount.cifs(8) manual page (e.g.man mount.cifs)
>>>>
>>>> mount -t cifs -o guest //cl0/c /mnt/0
>>>> (same)
>>>>
>>>> mount -t cifs -o sec=none //cl0/c /mnt/0
>>>> (same)
>>>>
>>>> mount -t smbfs //cl0/c /mnt/0
>>>> (works, when giving an empty password)
>>>>
>>>> mount -t smbfs -o guest //cl0/c /mnt/0
>>>> (also works)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is 2.6.20-rc7's cifs still not able to mount it?
>>>>
>>>> cifs-mount and samba, samba-client are 3.0.23d. Kernel is 2.6.20-rc7, 
>>>> CIFS and SMBFS are enabled.
>
>-- 
>"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
>Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/     -)-----   Christopher R. Hertel
>jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/   -)-----   ubiqx development, uninq.
>ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/     -)-----   crh at ubiqx.mn.org
>OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/    -)-----   crh at ubiqx.org
>

Jan
-- 
ft: http://freshmeat.net/p/chaostables/